Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this very important bill, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]. I commend the shadow minister for education for coming up with an outcome that would not have happened if we had we let the government put through this outrageous piece of legislation when it was first introduced. As an opposition, we had to balance the interests of 100,000 students who without this legislation passing this week would not be able to access new Commonwealth scholarships or improved rates of youth allowance with those of people who, quite frankly, are going to be dudded under this rather ridiculous lines-on-maps access arrangement that the Minister for Education has attached to this bill.

I wonder, with all of the resources of the two megadepartments at the minister’s disposal, why we had to have a map that has such erroneous and misleading descriptions and definitions when it relates to access to education. It might be a good indicator of remoteness when it comes to a range of other measures and policies, but this is different. This is specific. I do not know why the departments in question could not produce a map that made access and equity to education for rural students a whole lot better. And I do not accept that it would have cost a whole lot more.

We have a list of towns and, as all members have, we have looked through this list to see which of the towns that we represent will be able to access youth allowance under what I will call ‘the old rules’—because that is what students in regional Australia want, the existing system. I accept, having seen the outcomes of the Bradley review, that changes needed to be made. I do not believe we should have kept the old system completely in place. Definitely there was rorting. Definitely changes needed to be made. But I do not accept that they were needed to the level that the government has suggested and I do not accept the taint that the government has cast over the entire youth allowance scheme, and over rural students and tertiary education as a result. That is just totally out of order.

On this alphabetical list of what is described as ‘outer regional, remote and very remote locations’, I see some of the towns in my electorate, because I represent a rural area of western New South Wales. But there are three towns that immediately I do not see. One is Albury. Yes, Albury is a large regional centre. It is about four hours from Canberra, it is about seven and a half hours from Sydney and it is a good three and a half hours from Melbourne. It does have two regional universities, and they do a great job, but they do not cater for every student in every case. Students from Albury—who made long, loud representations to me when this bill was initially introduced—would like to stay with the old rules for youth allowance. They are not in a position where they can get jobs that last for 30 hours a week for an 18-month period in two years, which is the route they will now have to take to qualify for independent youth allowance.

The other two towns are Corowa and Deniliquin. In the case of Deniliquin—a tiny town on the Murray River with no air services, no public transport, a population of 8,000 and getting smaller, a town which has struggled unbelievably in the drought over the last 10 years—it is absolutely outrageous. It is one of the most rural locations you could possibly imagine and it has been classified under this system as ‘inner regional’. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, with all of the resources that she has at her disposal: could she please consider a better map that better categorises the towns that we as rural members of parliament represent. It is not the principle we oppose. We understand the principle. It is this map—this archaic object that has been brought down from the shelf and rolled out—which is expected to do a job which it really cannot do.

So, the towns of Albury, Corowa and Deniliquin in my electorate of Farrer are going to be seriously disadvantaged. I feel terrible for the parents that have approached me over the last six months that have signed petitions, that have poured out their hearts; for the kids who have come to me. The cases that really stick in my mind are those kids that say that, because their parents are on farms that have had declining incomes over the last five years, ‘I am not going to put my parents through this—I just won’t go to university; I will put it off to some later stage in my life.’ There are no jobs like this in a town the size of Deniliquin—there are very few jobs, but there is certainly no opportunity for students to work 30 hours a week for a period of 18 months in a two-year period in order to access youth allowance. I appreciate the income thresholds have changed, and that will make some difference—and that is a good thing. And I appreciate that the gap year students from 2008 are quarantined, and that is something that we really drew a line in the sand about, and we have achieved that. I feel pleased with that. But there is a much room for improvement. As a member of the coalition, I commit to working to change this if re-elected.

See this speech in context